The conservative/libertarian alliance: what are the conservatives willing to offer?

Michael Sutcliffe comments on the relationship between conservative and libertarians.

Here's a test for the libertarian/conservative alliance:

• Australians want voluntary euthanasia.
• We've got a senator who wants to ban the burka.
• Conservatives are worried about gay adoption.

There's no secret that libertarians, on principle, won't feel completely comfortable with the Liberal position on these issues. Banning clothing, treating people differently under law because of their sexuality, and denying someone the ownership of their own life doesn't seem all that principled or smart to our side of this 'broad church'.

However, these issues are probably not going to completely turn libertarians away from the LIberal Party either. Lots of libertarians believe Islam promotes a destructive value system, that children's welfare is the key issue in the gay adoption debate, and it's usually impossible to stop someone from suiciding if they're serious about doing it. 

I can't deny that I think it's great that Australians still have enough courage and 'rugged individualism' to support the right of a terminally ill person to choose how and when they die. I was getting dismayed at the nanny state that Australians seem to want.

Notwithstanding feelings like this which some libertarians may have from seeing public for support for things like voluntary euthanasia, I'd say we still have some ground here where compromise could be found. After all, isn't that one of the purposes of Menzies House?

I believe a true libertarian/conservative alliance would be very powerful. There would be many situations where the ability to negotiate an agreed position between these two groups would keep majority of public support behind the Liberal Party.

So, hypothetically, if the libertarians agree to oppose these issues - acknowledging that we haven't negotiated the details or caveats - what are the conservatives willing to put on the table? A flat income tax? Support for federalism and state's rights? Strengthening private property rights? Voluntary voting?

Michael Sutcliffe came to his classical liberal perspective through debating the Australian Libertarian Society around a decade ago, and has remained on this side of politics ever since. Residing in southern Queensland, he is married with two sons and is employed as an aeronautical engineer with the Defence forces.

Comments

[Clinton Mead]

1.

I suggest they abolish the income (and hence, capital gains) tax for the poor and middle class, and make savings by doing the following:

(1) Stop spending our tax dollars helping the Middle East build their countries and instead actually have the Australian Defence force defending Australia *gasp*
(2) Scrap the "green army".
(3) Scrap baby bonuses/government maternity leave in favor of tax concessions and tax refunds.

Do conservatives really actually have any issue with the above? Its billions in savings with no pain to the average Australian.

[TerjeP]

2.

I don't think conservatives feel the need to compromise on anything. That's why libertarians should vote for the Liberal Democrats. The Liberals don't have a low tax free market track record any better than the ALP. At present I'd put the Liberals a little ahead of the ALP but it's mostly a technicality. Both major parties suck.

[PaulW]

3.

get rid of Dept of Education.
Make Medicare only for those on benefits (ie: pensions or low income)
Lose the Dept of housing and just allow rent subsidies for those low income earners.

[Clinton Mead]

4.

Maybe drop the National Socialist Curriculum as well.

[Ben]

5.

As a conservative, I support a flat income tax, federalism, gun rights, strengthening private property rights, and voluntary voting. When libertarians don’t want to abort or extinguish “useless gobblers” I tend to find more room for collegiality.

Now when can we talk about privatising all schools and universities?

Getting rid of the Dept. of Education sounds like a good idea Paul. Clinton Mead’s plan to scrap the "green army" and baby bonuses/government maternity leave in favour of tax concessions and tax refunds, also sounds very attractive.

[Selim]

6.

1.Privatize the ABC
2.Privatize SBS
3.Abolish ACMA
4.Abolish federal Department of Education
5.Get rid of Media Ownership Laws

It would be a great start if the Libs start with the Companies/Agencies mentioned above.
I really don't see any reason why we need to be like the North Korean government and leave Media Institutions to the state.

Mr Abbott, GOD HATES SOCIALISM!!!

[Angry Conservative]

7.

I may be mistaken but I wasn't of the view that Menzies House was established to come to a happy place "where compromise could be found."

I believe conservative priorities should be the following:

1) Abolish State governments: more governments means more taxes and more taxes means less financial freedom.
2) Abolish the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Establish a voucher system to give equal money to all mothers and enable women to have a choice whether to stay at home looking after their children or to engage the services of a childcare centre.
3) Support for decentralisation to accommodate a growing population and reduce urbanisation problems.
4) Abolish all Medicare funding of abortion.
5) Support the establishment of nuclear energy plants in Australia.
6) Support for a single, high-standard national curriculum that makes it easier for students and teachers who move interstate and also to compare performances. The NSW and SA curriculums are currently the best curriculums.
7) Oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption.
8) Support a flat rate of income taxation at 10%.
9) Support a strong immigration program that also meets humanitarian obligations to genuine refugees but doesn't encourage people to enter the country by unauthorised means.
10) Support the traditional family as the prerequisite for a strong and stable civil society.

[Will Church]

8.

Interesting that you raise the issue of federalism and flat rate income tax alongside eachother.

The major issue for tax reform is one of jursidiction rather than rate or level. Correcting vertical fiscal imbalance and restoring to the States their pre-WWII revenue powers has got to be priortised if we're serious about reviving federalism.

[Davidmrussell]

9.

So what the hell did you think MH was establisahed for, Angry? Get with the program, son! If,through intelligent debate, we can establish positions that will enhance quality of life then we are applying ourselves positively and with purpose. Surely that's a sound aim? And why do we need a trade-off, Michael Sutcliffe? How about we just work through the many and varied issues to discuss rational approaches that might ultimately gain broad consensus? I do admire, though, your initiative in proposing the debate, Good on you!

[Paul]

10.

Angry Conservative said...

1) Abolish State governments: more governments means more taxes and more taxes means less financial freedom.

3) Support for decentralisation to accommodate a growing population and reduce urbanisation problems.

I dont know how you manage to tie those two together. In one you want to centralise all power in the federal government, in the next you want to decentralise the population. With a larger central government there would be less push to move the population around.

8) Support a flat rate of income taxation at 10%.

Would need to be at about 12.5% to get rid of the PAYG progressive tax

[Angry Conservative]

11.

>>"In one you want to centralise all power in the federal government, in the next you want to decentralise the population."

Where did I say that I want all power in one government? I believe in expanded regional governments as a replacement for State governments.
I believe in a two-tier system of government, not the three tiers that currently exist.

>>"Would need to be at about 12.5% to get rid of the PAYG progressive tax"

Why not reduce expenditure in other areas so you don't need to offset any losses from the shift away from PAYG to flat rate?
If governments don't spend as much as they do, they obviously won't need to tax as much as they do.

[John Angelico]

12.

"Expanded regional government" = a State by another name. You can't just expand on so-called local government and call it regional. You will always have boundary problems - that region does "X" but the next region doesn't ("X" might be driving on the left side of the road, or allowing high-rise flats).

To reduce government impact on our lives (ie. burden of all forms of taxation from the current level of about 35%) we need to reduce our demand for government to do things for us.

Start with Education (already stated), then go on to Health and Welfare. Then mow down the bureaucracies until all that's left is
a) Law and Order and
b) Civil and Military Defence.

Then pause and have a look around.
:-)

[TerjeP]

13.

Local governments are just a branch of state governments. They have no constitutional standing. If you want greater regionalism the only realistic path is the creation of more states.

[Paul]

14.

How about getting rid of unions, in particular public sector unions

[TerjeP]

15.

People have every right to form and join unions. How would libertarians regard a ban on unions as some form of compromise?

[Michael Sutcliffe]

16.

Voluntary association means people should be able to form groups that support their own interests.

However, with the public sector there probably is a case to prevent unions, similar to the military not being permitted to have unions. There's still associations that support the interests of serving members, but they don't get given the special powers that unions get. Libertarians believe people should be able to form unions, but that unions should not have special privileges under law. I think eliminating public sector unions could fit in nicely with this view.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

17.

Yes.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

18.

Thanks to all for their comments. This has been good for me because I sometimes wonder if this alliance can work and I can see from the comments here that there really is synergy between us.

Libertarians probably need to work out what positions are tolerable. In other words, even if they don't fully support, it won't stop them voting for the Libs. We probably should go for two or three biggies. I'd suggest
- laws that protect family and marriage, which we all know is big with conservatives
- maybe checks and balances on abortions i.e. early windows, counseling
- perhaps a unified stance on immigration i.e. libertarians supporting a controlled and reasonable intake with emphasis on social cohesion
- libertarians agreeing to oppose an ETS with a caveat until compelling evidence suggests otherwise, this may be hard for some

Conservatives need to choose two or three issues that they'll support or at least tolerate if they don't support it
- tax cuts are always a winner (coupled with reduced spending and no increases in tax elsewhere; just commit to one area and hold to it eg income tax rates)
- Firearms owners rights, I really think if the conservatives could agree that a free society isn't scared of law-abiding people owning firearms they'd find additional support from a reasonable sized minority group
- Federalism, let's see some devolution of power back to the states
- Opposing censorship, let's acknowledge free speech is important, oppose that internet filter, oppose bans on advertising so long as it's not aimed at children.

Obviously these are influenced by my own biases and preferences so other suggestions are appreciated.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

19.

It would also be good for the Libs and the LDP to acknowledge we're on the same side and perhaps agree to sit at opposite sides of the negotiating table at times. I actually hope the LDP becomes to the Libs what the Greens are to Labor. It's not the most harmonious relationship, but it's working for them.

[TerjeP]

20.

Michael - I see no benefit in the LDP aligning with the Liberals. The Liberals gave reasonable preferences to the LDP in the last election, as they reasonably should, and being free to do preference deals with minor parties is tactically important to the LDP. So a preference swap makes no sense for the LDP. Whilst most LDP voters probable lean towards the Liberals many would otherwise vote Green or ALP. Any formal agreement, or even an informal agreement would see the LDP lose that support. As and when the LDP enters parliament it can vote with the Liberals on issues it agrees with the Liberals on. However it should vote with the Sex Party or the Greens on other issues.

The issue that can and ought to unify libertarians and conservatives is taxation. However even there I'm not sure conservatives can be trusted.

[Will Church]

21.

Michael,

I do find it interesting that you cite public opinion has having some kind of decisive weight on the issue of Euthanasia. Do you consider public opinion on the death penalty or gay marriage has having the same decisive weight?

I think the view that euthanasia amounts merely to a persons "right to take their own life" is quite misguided. There are greater public policy issues at play which would make medically assisted euthanasia problematic. Families challenge wills all the time on grounds it was made under undue influence or the testator/testatrix lacked capacity or was non compos mentis. I could imagine that euthanasia would open a real can of worms and have the courts clogged with challenges.

I suspect you're someone that does not ever concede other people might have a point so I can predict an uncompromising rebuttal.

[pk]

22.

I love how Consevative bleet all day about the need "To reduce government impact on our lives ". Except when it come to controlling your own reprodutive outcomes.

Not being able to decide whether or not you can have and raise a child is a decision happliy given over to the state - but paying an extra 0.1% tax is the purest form of tyranny apprently.

[DavidLeyonhjelm]

23.

The LDP might be on the same side as elements of the Liberals, but not the party as a whole. There is a substantial, highly intolerant, religious element within the Liberals with which the LDP has little in common.

Equally, there are elements within Labor that share many of the values of the LDP, but also many serious leftists with which it has little in common.

The suggestion that the LDP could be to the Liberals what the Greens are to Labor might be worth a thought if the Christian Democrats weren't already performing that role, in NSW at least. There's no room for the LDP.

Finally, as a practical matter, the LDP finds Labor substantially easier to negotiate with than the Liberals. Pragmatism can count more than policy when it comes to the pointy end.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

24.

Terje: I see no benefit in the LDP aligning with the Liberals.

David: The LDP might be on the same side as elements of the Liberals, but not the party as a whole. There is a substantial, highly intolerant, religious element within the Liberals with which the LDP has little in common.

Yeah, well I never said you needed a monogamous homosexual marriage with them. More like a casual booty call between old friends who used to have a thing going and, while it didn't work out, still harbour occasional feelings for each other.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

25.

I do find it interesting that you cite public opinion has having some kind of decisive weight on the issue of Euthanasia.

I don't think I inferred any 'decisive weight'. I simply said it was a pleasant surprise that so many Australians supported self-ownership.

To the contrary: my life, liberty and property are not negotiable, adjusted according to public opinion or subject to democratic vote. These things are sacred and go to the core of my existence. That might be an 'uncompromising rebuttal',but like I said, those things aren't to be compromised.

[Selim]

26.

Question to those who have decent connections to the Liberal Party: What's up with Abbott not wanting to privatize the ABC?

[TerjeP (say tay-a)]

27.

Selim - I don't know. However it is a clearly stated LDP policy to privatise the ABC.

[Grantley]

28.

A couple of comments / observations:
Euthanasia, anyone have had an involvement with ageing parents or anyone with a terminal condition should be aware of the term "Palliative Care". Sometimes it is wiser to step over the sleeping dog that to kick it off the porch.

Gay "marriage", (I stand to be corrected here), but isnt a marriage ceremony about the union of a man and a woman? or are they just words inserted to suit the situation? (I ask that seriously, because I don't know).

I see the above issues as side issues to the bigger picture of Govt fiscal responsibility and good corporate governance by Govt. If we do not have an economy that is vibrant, encompassing, growing and fair then side issues become truly irrelevant.

Example: I haven't agreed with much of what Tony Windsor has said or done to date, but he has my attention when he says that any proposed Carbon Tax....err, sorry...price; must ensure that our food production is ensured and that production does not turn away to more profitable bio-fuels etc. We (Australians) have taken much for granted for all of our existence (security, food & water), we have only recently become to understand that water may not be a god given right, the other two we still take as 'givens'.

So somewhere in all of that I think we, whether we be Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, Labor, City, Country, Hetero or Homo sexual, Green, Black, White, Purple or Pink all crave the same thing at the end of the day, its about what we perceive as a priority and how we go about getting it that differs.

And that is actually a very good thing.

[TerjeP (say tay-a)]

29.

Marriage is a legal term in the constitution which the federal government is empowered to define and administer. It has other meanings (polyseme) for other people in other contexts but if we are making laws then it's the legal context we should focus on.

[Jason]

30.

Great article Michael!

[Brett]

31.

Conservatives! We're against government!

Sometimes....when it suits us...kind of...

[Brett]

32.

Conservatives!

We'll call atheists "communists" whilst at the same time support violent wealth distribution and several other planks of the communist manifesto!

[Brett]

33.

Conservatives!

We're economic illiterate, freedom hating intolerant moralising busybodies who have no problem with centralised coercive government action as long as it supports our agenda!

[Brett]

34.

Conservatives!

We'll accuse atheists of being "devoid of compassion", and yet support closed boarders, because "I don't care if you're fleeing war, poverty or oppression, this is OUR COUNTRY!"

[Brett]

35.

Conservatives!

Because you're totally a socialist, but a "paid paternal leave scheme" is a totally free-market individualistic concept!

[Brett]

36.

Conservatives!

Because damn what the evidence and statistics say, I believe atheists commit more crime and have a higher divorce rate than Christians, just BECAUSE!

[Brett]

37.

[Removed by Moderators]

[Brett]

38.

Conservatives!

We believe that government should protect life, liberty and property!

Oh and btw, in order to fund our campaign promises we're going to have to take your property off you, and if you don't let us, you're gonna have to lose your liberty, and if you put up a fight, well..well..you didn't deserve your life because you were being UNAUSTRALIAN.

[JD]

39.

Serious question, what are the problems of urbanisation? There are a bunch of problems with transportation, but that's because we're only letting a small area of each city truly 'urbanise' (read: become a proper CBD). Apart from that the huge cost of things like the NBN is because we have so many regional centres, when perhaps we'd be better off adopting a kind of sprawling metropolis approach that works on the east coast of the US. If zoning regulations were truly relaxed, proper suburbia extended from here to the central coast, and Gosford became a decent second CBD, this would eliminate more perceived problems than sending everyone out to the regions.

[Sean]

40.

Is there any evidence to suggest that there is a great surge of libertarianism? There is this wide-eyed belief that somehow a combination will be so electoral-winning that it will swash away the Labor/Green vote.

Is there any evidence to back this up?

[Sean]

41.

Seriously people. The LDP got 24,262 votes - and this is representative of a great wave of libertarianism?

[Vikas Nayak]

42.

Honestly speaking...the LDP has problems because they're alienated from the conservatives by not being batshit crazy...and alienated from university libertarian groups because they're on the fence about climate change (I was helping form a libertarian society at Macquaire University, and this was frequently brought up), as well as a lack cohesive policy structures. I would totally would expect a libertarian to suggest "free market mechanism internalising the cost of damage to the environment"...but instead we get a fence sitting "we're not sure man is behind climate change". Just my experience with libertarians is that even if climate change is irreversible, the argument for a better suited economy to deal with adverse effects to the environment is the view point of the ones i find myself around.

The younger libertarians have more in common with the Liberal Party than they do with the LDP. The LDP has some internally inconsistent ideas, the best example that comes to mind is the school vouchers idea. This is something that the liberal party has been touting for a while, saying that its cheaper for the public to fund private schools (neglecting to inform that Private schools ALSO get private funding from the parents) which basically means you're subsidising education. If you want these costs to come down, elementary economics would dictate that you WITHDRAW the subsidy, and allow the market to reach the price (which would be lower) on its own.

Personally i went through it and found some instances where Free Market Economics was just not applied, and instead it seemed like something taken from the CATO institute laced with producivity comission figures, rather than an alternative presented without government intrusion.

The LDP tries, but at this stage, i think its still catering to its older supporters and not attracting new supporters who are flocking to a revived popularity for Hayek by the likes of Ron Paul.

[Will Church]

43.

If it has no decisive weight then why quote it, surely it's an irrelevancy.

I'd be very interested to know where these inalienable rights of "life, liberty and property" come from. In previous posts you've described yourself as a rationalist atheist and one would assume you reject metaphysics.

[Will Church]

44.

You're attempt at parody is really quite infantile. So many examples of strawman fallacy in your posts, it makes me wonder why you even bothered.

[Brett]

45.

What strawmans?

-If you support public education, progressive income taxation and a central bank, like nearly ALL conservatives I've ever spoken to DO, then boom, three planks of the communist manifesto.

-Conservatives are forever decrying socialists and socialism, and yet the leader of their party introduced an entirely, undeniably SOCIALIST policy.

-Any conservative who supports taxation NECESSARILY supports the government taking money from people at the threat of their liberty.

-Conservatives in MH articles have literally called atheists "uncompassionate", and nearly ALL conservatives are opposed to opening australian boarders for humanitarian reasons.

-In numerous idiotic articles attacking atheists on MH, it has been claimed that atheism is "bad for the family" and leads to crime, and yet the evidence proves that atheists are less likely to get divorced and less likely to commit crime.
-All conservatives who support teh existence of the state support centralised, coercive government action.

Not a SINGLE strawman, thank you very much.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

46.

If it has no decisive weight then why quote it, surely it's an irrelevancy.

It's completely relevant to my article and other people would find it interesting. You don't like it? Then don't read it!

I'd be very interested to know where these inalienable rights of "life, liberty and property" come from. In previous posts you've described yourself as a rationalist atheist and one would assume you reject metaphysics.

They come from the fact you are alive, you want to stay alive, and you want to live your life to the fullest capacity possible in the pursuit of your own happiness - a position that you can rationally attribute to all humans.

I am a rationalist atheist, but why would I reject metaphysics? My metaphysics is objective reality. Furthermore, I'd say we're discussing ethics.

I'm really not interested in doing this again for the billionth time. Some other time over drinks perhaps.